[Lerc]

Do you not think those intrusive banners and popups implying that Wikipedia is about to imminently go broke unless you give them money, are ads?

[AndyKelley]

I think you're letting pedantry hinder you from seeing a useful pattern.

[Lerc]

I shall take that as a no, then.

I don't think it takes pedantry to think advertising in order to solicit funds for a non-profit is still advertising.

If anything the criteria I would apply is does it diminish the user experience while attempting to motivate the viewer to act in a manner that benefits the advertiser.

May I ask why you do not consider it advertising? Is it because it is asking for donations? Because it is a non-profit? If so, why would those factors exempt them?

I am certainly not alone in thinking their fundraising campaigns are intrusive https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33175098

[AndyKelley]

As an example, a line that they don't cross, but a for-profit company absolutely would, is compromising the integrity of the encyclopedia articles. For example, a marketing department would pay a lot of money for Wikipedia to delete or soften https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_of_Nestl%C3%A9 but they'll never do that, not for profit at least.

[sadeshmukh]

It's about who they're fundraising for. Wikipedia fundraising for Wikipedia is fundamentally different than selling out ad space to the highest bidder.